Different effects of indomethacin on healing of shaft and metaphyseal fractures
2015 (English)In: Acta Orthopaedica, ISSN 1745-3674, E-ISSN 1745-3682, Vol. 86, no 2, 243-247 p.Article in journal (Refereed) Published
Background and purpose - NSAIDs are commonly used in the clinic, and there is a general perception that this does not influence healing in common types of human fractures. Still, NSAIDs impair fracture healing dramatically in animal models. These models mainly pertain to fractures of cortical bone in shafts, whereas patients more often have corticocancellous fractures in metaphyses. We therefore tested the hypothesis that the effect of an NSAID is different in shaft healing and metaphyseal healing. Methods - 26 mice were given an osteotomy of their left femur with an intramedullary nail. 13 received injections of indomethacin, 1 mg/kg twice daily. After 17 days of healing, the femurs were analyzed with 3-point bending and microCT. 24 other mice had holes drilled in both proximal tibias, to mimic a stable metaphyseal injury. A screw was inserted in the right tibial hole only. After 7 days of indomethacin injections or control injections, screw fixation was measured with mechanical pull-out testing and the side without a screw was analyzed with microCT. Results - In the shaft model, indomethacin led to a 35% decrease in force at failure (95% CI: 14-54). Callus size was reduced to a similar degree, as seen by microCT. Metaphyseal healing was less affected by indomethacin, as no effect on pull-out force could be seen (95% CI: - 27 to 17) and there was only a small drop in new bone volume inside the drill hole. The difference in the relative effect of indomethacin between the 2 models was statistically significant (p = 0.006). Interpretation - Indomethacin had a minimal effect on stable metaphyseal fractures, but greatly impaired healing of unstable shaft fractures. This could explain some of the differences found between animal models and clinical experience.
Place, publisher, year, edition, pages
Informa Healthcare , 2015. Vol. 86, no 2, 243-247 p.
IdentifiersURN: urn:nbn:se:liu:diva-117204DOI: 10.3109/17453674.2014.973328ISI: 000351740100017PubMedID: 25323801OAI: oai:DiVA.org:liu-117204DiVA: diva2:807118
Funding Agencies|Swedish Research Council; Linkoping University; Ostergotland County Council; King Gustaf V and Queen Victoria Freemason Foundation2015-04-222015-04-212016-03-15